Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on :22. d May, 2018 Date of decision :4. h August, 2018 + W.P.(C) 8125/2016 & CM No.3362/2016 FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION (REGD.) versus LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ....... Petitioner + W.P.(C) 12088/2016 & CM Nos.9316/2017, 10386/2017 & 14678/2017 APEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF NCT DELHI ........ Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS versus versus DELHI FACTORY OWNERS' FEDERATION ....... Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 2658/2017 & CM No.11560/2017 + W.P.(C) 3360/2017 & CM No.14703/2017 ....... RESPONDENTS AUTOMOBILE TRADERS ASSOCIATION OF DELHI LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 3385/2017 & CM No.14800/2017 + W.P.(C) 3684/2017 & CM No.16236/2017 versus COLORWHEEL LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ANR ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PVT LTD ........ Petitioner versus WP(C) 521...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)53
1. Appeal in ITA No. 4545/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 20th Nov., 2000, against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt.31st Aug., 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to order of assessment under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1997-98. In response, the assessee has filed on 12th Sept., 2002, a cross-objection numbered as CO No. 135/Del/2002. Appeal in ITA No. 2239/Del/2002 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 23 May, 2002, against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 21st Feb., 2002, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr.1998-99.2. As the common facts and disputes are involved in these appeals and the cross-objection, the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.We are disposing them by this consolidated order for convenience.3. The main dispute in these appeals pertains to the deduction claimed by the assessee-compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 Date of decision:31. 10.2014 s IN THE MATTER OF: UMESH KUMAR MOZA ASHOK KUMAR DHAR ROOP KISHAN KAUL ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate versus GOVT. OF J & K AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. By this common judgment, the Court proposes to decide all the three connected cases, as the facts are quite similar and the grievance raised by the petitioners are identical. For the purpose of ready reference, the facts mentioned in WP(C) No.1104/2013 are being referred to.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1104/2013 has sought directions to the respondent No.1/Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the respondent No.2/ Department of Health & Medical Education, Government of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to amend the Government Order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : March 18, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : April 09 , 2013 + WP(C)No.1200/2011 INDRAPRASTHA PEOPLE & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rohit K.Aggarwal, Advocate for R-1 & R-2. Mr.Ashok Desai, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Kunal Tandon, Ms.Nidhi Jain and Mr.Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Advocates for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We are concerned in the instant writ petition with a social debate; and we need to caution that sometimes an ongoing social debate becomes a major ethical issue with no clear perspective in sight.2. The ageing Indian conservatism blames the intrusion of the Western culture into the Indian ethos for all the problems we find in the societal behaviour. On the other hand, the assertive, new liberal sensibility haughtily blames a monolithic id...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h September, 2019 Pronounced on:1. t October, 2019 + W.P. (C) 7666/2019 and CM No.31863/2019 LAXMI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .Petitioner Versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. .Respondents W.P. (C) 6417/2019 and CM No.27264/2019 W.P. (C) 6438/2019 and CM No.27341/2019 W.P. (C) 7050/2019 and CM No.29407/2019 W.P. (C) 7354/2019 and CM No.30646/2019 W.P. (C) 7572/2019 W.P. (C) 7664/2019 and CM No.31861/2019 W.P. (C) 7665/2019 and CM No.31862/2019 W.P. (C) 7856/2019 and CM No.32668/2019 W.P. (C) 7858/2019 and CM No.32671/2019 W.P. (C) 7867/2019 and CM No.32684/2019 W.P. (C) 7869/2019 and CM No.32689/2019 W.P. (C) 7870/2019 and CM No.32694/2019 W.P. (C) 7871/2019 and CM No.32695/2019 W.P. (C) 7872/2019 and CM No.32696/2019 W.P. (C) 7873/2019 and CM No.32697/2019 W.P. (C) 7875/2019 and CM No.32704/2019 W.P. (C) 7908/2019 and CM No.32769/2019 W.P. (C) 8244/2019 W.P. (C) 8863/2019 W.P. (C) 9676/2019 + + + + + + + + + + + +...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(Del)308; [2002]123TAXMAN1(Delhi)
S. B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The substantial questions of law which have been raised and are required to be answered in this appeal are :'(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the damages or any part thereof for illegal occupation of the premises accrued to the appellant though the claim thereforee was yet to be adjudicated finally and was pending disposal before the High Court ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount received by the appellant under interim order of the High Court dated January 6, 1993, relevant to the assessment year 1993-94 is taxable on month to month basis in the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 as relatable thereto?' 2. Facts :The appeal is for the assessment year 1990-91 and the first question for the assessment year 1991-92 rotates around a single issue. Briefly stated the facts of the case on the issue ate :The assessed entered into a lease agreement on November 26, 1979, with Arya Dharma Seva Sangh, for the lease o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(81)ELT176TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order -in-original dated 22-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. By this order, the Learned Collector has directed the appellants to pay the duty of excise at the appropriate leviable rate on 22 Kltrs of Solvent CLX received by them during the relevant period (August, 1981) under Rule 196 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Further, the Learned Collector has ordered that the goods weighing 400 Ltrs. of GR. 17/98 and 15443 Ltrs of Solvent CLX (total 15843 Ltrs) valued at Rs. 54,336.00 seized in the case on 1-9-1981 are liable for confiscation under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the goods have been provisionally released on their execution of B. 11 Bond with the cash security of Rs. 5,000/-and the same had not been produced in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by the assessee. Therefore, the Collector ordered them to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-towards the value of the...
Tag this Judgment!